So you will just keep on getting lied despite repub media sees you as a stupid turd

If we're supposed to based our source of information on the outcome of elections, MSNBC and CNN should have been off the air, after the 2010 midterms and Walker's recall victory.

And the irony of it is that the people, getting on Karl Rove's case after Ohio was called for Obama, weren't quite as critical of Ed Schultz for his stating that the Wisconsin recall race wasn't really over and some votes were still arriving.....after MSNBC and NBC called it for Walker.

If we're supposed to based our source of information on the outcome of elections, MSNBC and CNN should have been off the air, after the 2010 midterms and Walker's recall victory.

And the irony of it is that the people, getting on Karl Rove's case after Ohio was called for Obama, weren't quite as critical of Ed Schultz for his stating that the Wisconsin recall race wasn't really over and some votes were still arriving.....after MSNBC and NBC called it for Walker.

That would be a start as evidenced by the election. No one was more wrong then fox and the right wing. You kept on about the oversampling, this and that, basically feeding us fox bullshit and you ended up eating crow.

That would be a start as evidenced by the election. No one was more wrong then fox and the right wing. You kept on about the oversampling, this and that, basically feeding us fox bullshit and you ended up eating crow.

You missed the point by a country mile. There was no universal consensus that Romney would win. Despite citing the pundits on Fox who picked Obama to win, you keep thinking the entire network is based on those who picked Romney.

You missed the point by a country mile. There was no universal consensus that Romney would win. Despite citing the pundits on Fox who picked Obama to win, you keep thinking the entire network is based on those who picked Romney.

if they want info that is 100% accurate, proven, and fact - they can go to 538.com

If they want something that is pretty accurate, gives them hope, keeps them encouraged, and gives their side more donations and a greater chance of winning? Then it's Rass.

Rass is kinda like the coach that tells the Hoosiers that they CAN go defeat Lebron, Kobe and the Dream Team. "Everyone KNOWs you can do it, guys!"

No, we all know you're about to get pummeled. But why bother donating/voting if you know that?

Rass is a cheerleader, ,and one that repubs prefer, despite 538 being WAY more accurate.

You have seen it on this very board how delusional Republicans are when it comes to facts and evidence, what is correct and what is complete bullshit. They RARELY get anything correct. I don`t know why they choose to live this way. The self-delusion in all things has to stop. They NEVER get anything correct nor do they even know whats going on when they have no clue what correct information is.

You have seen it on this very board how delusional Republicans are when it comes to facts and evidence, what is correct and what is complete bullshit. They RARELY get anything correct. I don`t know why they choose to live this way. The self-delusion in all things has to stop. They NEVER get anything correct nor do they even know whats going on when they have no clue what correct information is.

We all knew all along that Nate Silver was right more than anyone in 2008 and 2010, and he was going to be most correct in 2012. He was.

Rassmussen was SO afraid of losing their slot as #1 with Repubs that they actually FAILED to make a PREDICTION. They saw the same numebrs as nate, but they KNEW the moment they predicted obama, repubs would be crushed, and dems would rejoice.

So they let politics - and job security - dictate their actions. To me, they're a numbers entertainment company now... period. They help motivate, they help entertain, they give you some numbers. If you want accuracy, cold, unforgiving, and true, you choose 538.com - but if you want something to keep the repubs motivated and feeling good, you choose Rass.

We all knew all along that Nate Silver was right more than anyone in 2008 and 2010, and he was going to be most correct in 2012. He was.

Rassmussen was SO afraid of losing their slot as #1 with Repubs that they actually FAILED to make a PREDICTION. They saw the same numebrs as nate, but they KNEW the moment they predicted obama, repubs would be crushed, and dems would rejoice.

So they let politics - and job security - dictate their actions. To me, they're a numbers entertainment company now... period. They help motivate, they help entertain, they give you some numbers. If you want accuracy, cold, unforgiving, and true, you choose 538.com - but if you want something to keep the repubs motivated and feeling good, you choose Rass.

McWay, given your pre-election expectations how surprised were you of the total beatdown of the Republican party in the swing states. ?

Shocked would the word. But, now I'm learning that fewer GOP voters and fewer evangelicals showed up for Romney than they did for McCain.

That's even more shocking. Why they would stay home, knowing what another Obama term would mean, is quite nauseating?

Romney wasn't my favorite, going into this. In fact, my fear was that Romney would just be handed the nomination without earning it.

He earned it; therefore, I supported him.

All of my predictions were predicated on ONE THING: Romney at least MATCHING the turnout McCain got.

Now, we know he didn't do that and that's why he lost.

The most sickening part of it all is that the same establishment Republicans (particularly the pundits), who swore up and down that Romney was the ONLY ONE who could beat Obama, are now yapping about how the GOP needs to change its demographics or be more moderate or whatever.

That's what has Tea Party folks so enraged. TWICE we ran the guy THEY said was the only plausible candidate to win and TWICE that guy got killed.

Shocked would the word. But, now I'm learning that fewer GOP voters and fewer evangelicals showed up for Romney than they did for McCain.

That's even more shocking. Why they would stay home, knowing what another Obama term would mean, is quite nauseating?

Romney wasn't my favorite, going into this. In fact, my fear was that Romney would just be handed the nomination without earning it.

He earned it; therefore, I supported him.

I just spewed my tea. Do you sincerely believe Romney EARNED his nomination?

Quote

All of my predictions were predicated on ONE THING: Romney at least MATCHING the turnout McCain got.

Now, we know he didn't do that and that's why he lost.

I heard the real reason he lost was because he wasn't wearing his magic underwear.

Face it, he lost because he's a leaf that blows in the breeze, not standing for anything, pandering to everything, lieing through his teeth every time his lips moved, and being hopelessly out of touch with the American people. He lost because he is a moron!

You have seen it on this very board how delusional Republicans are when it comes to facts and evidence, what is correct and what is complete bullshit. They RARELY get anything correct. I don`t know why they choose to live this way. The self-delusion in all things has to stop. They NEVER get anything correct nor do they even know whats going on when they have no clue what correct information is.

Really!!

We got the 2010 midterms correct.

We got the 2004 election correct.

We got the Wisconsin recall correct.

You win some; you lose some.

Speaking of the Wisconsin recall, another thing I predicted DID come to pass (although I discussed this mainly on HuffPo). To the libs who were celebrating taking the Senate from the Republicans, even though Walker kept his job, I told them the GOP would get the state Senate back this election. They did.

I heard the real reason he lost was because he wasn't wearing his magic underwear.

Face it, he lost because he's a leaf that blows in the breeze, not standing for anything, pandering to everything, lieing through his teeth every time his lips moved, and being hopelessly out of touch with the American people. He lost because he is a moron!

Speaking of the Wisconsin recall, another thing I predicted DID come to pass (although I discussed this mainly on HuffPo). To the libs who were celebrating taking the Senate from the Republicans, even though Walker kept his job, I told them the GOP would get the state Senate back this election. They did.

voters don't turn out in nearly the same #'s for midterms and recall elections and that favors Repubs (i.e. less voters is good for Repubs which is why Repubs like to attempt to supress the vote). People aren't goign to wait in line 7 hours to vote for governor. Repubs assumed their victories in 2010 was some kind of mandate rather than just being the usual effect of low voter turn out.

From what I've heard Romney received the largest % of the white vote ever but that is a shrinking % of the total vote. Romney also got less of the minority vote than McCain did in 2008 but the problem is that the minority vote is growing.

Bottom line is Repubs can't win elections without winning minority voters. The party knows this but they don't know what to do about it. They think the solution is a marketing problem and not a problem with the product they are selling. They think if they can change the salesman from a Romney to a Rubio (for example) that the minority voters will want to buy their shitty product but it's not going to happen. Some people in the party understand this but it's going to be a battle to convince the party to come up with new ideas

voters don't turn out in nearly the same #'s for midterms and recall elections and that favors Repubs (i.e. less voters is good for Repubs which is why Repubs like to attempt to supress the vote). People aren't goign to wait in line 7 hours to vote for governor. Repubs assumed their victories in 2010 was some kind of mandate rather than just being the usual effect of low voter turn out.

From what I've heard Romney received the largest % of the white vote ever but that is a shrinking % of the total vote. Romney also got less of the minority vote than McCain did in 2008 but the problem is that the minority vote is growing.

Bottom line is Repubs can't win elections without winning minority voters. The party knows this but they don't know what to do about it. They think the solution is a marketing problem and not a problem with the product they are selling. They think if they can't change the salesman from a Romney to a Rubio (for example) that the minority voters will want to buy their shitty product but it's not going to happen. Some people in the party understand this but it's going to be a battle to convince the party to come up with new ideas

You missed the point by a country mile. There was no universal consensus that Romney would win. Despite citing the pundits on Fox who picked Obama to win, you keep thinking the entire network is based on those who picked Romney.

voters don't turn out in nearly the same #'s for midterms and recall elections and that favors Repubs (i.e. less voters is good for Repubs which is why Repubs like to attempt to supress the vote). People aren't goign to wait in line 7 hours to vote for governor. Repubs assumed their victories in 2010 was some kind of mandate rather than just being the usual effect of low voter turn out.

You don't lose as badly as the Dems did in 2010, merely due to lower turnout.

From what I've heard Romney received the largest % of the white vote ever but that is a shrinking % of the total vote. Romney also got less of the minority vote than McCain did in 2008 but the problem is that the minority vote is growing.

Bottom line is Repubs can't win elections without winning minority voters. The party knows this but they don't know what to do about it. They think the solution is a marketing problem and not a problem with the product they are selling. They think if they can change the salesman from a Romney to a Rubio (for example) that the minority voters will want to buy their shitty product but it's not going to happen. Some people in the party understand this but it's going to be a battle to convince the party to come up with new ideas

Romney did get a larger percentage of the white vote. But, that could be due to getting a lower white voter count overall.

Had Romney matched McCain's numbers in turnout, he would have won the election.

Every party thinks they have a marketing product when it loses. The Dems make the same argument after a defeat.

As for the message, it has to focus on capitalism and economics. The problem with the small/limited government idea is that you're using it to appeal to demos far more dependent on government to survive.

You don't lose as badly as the Dems did in 2010, merely due to lower turnout.

I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make hereDems lost in the midterms (most likely due to low voter turnout but what the difference really since they lost). Repubs got killed this time around. Romney didn't win one battleground state and every Senate race in the battleground states went to the Dems (even the lesbian Senate candidate in Wisconsin)

If it comforts you that your party won in the midterms and Scott Walker won a recall election then good for you. I'll feel fine knowing the Dems had a full sweep of all the battleground states, Obama was re-elected and he'll get 2 and maybe 3 more appointments to the Supreme Court. When you're bummed about his Supreme Court choices I"ll remind you that you can still feel good about the 2010 midterms

Romney did get a larger percentage of the white vote. But, that could be due to getting a lower white voter count overall. Had Romney matched McCain's numbers in turnout, he would have won the election.

Every party thinks they have a marketing product when it loses. The Dems make the same argument after a defeat. As for the message, it has to focus on capitalism and economics. The problem with the small/limited government idea is that you're using it to appeal to demos far more dependent on government to survive.

your guy won the largest part of the electorate that is shrinking the fastsest and he won an even smaller % of the minority vote than MCain did in 2012 and that segment of the population is only going to get larger. Unless you can find a way to produce some more elderly white voters your side has a problem

Hopefully the Repubs will continue to believe (as it seems you do if I'm interpretting you correctly) that they have no problem with the message and only a problem with the messenger. I'm sure if it's Rubio or Jindal tries to sell tax cuts for the rich, outlawing all abortion, privatizing everything, self deportation and whatever else Romney was pitching it will work out much better next time. You just need a young brown face to give the message

I'm not exactly sure what point you're trying to make hereDems lost in the midterms (most likely due to low voter turnout but what the difference really since they lost). Repubs got killed this time around. Romney didn't win one battleground state and every Senate race in the battleground states went to the Dems (even the lesbian Senate candidate in Wisconsin)

If it comforts you that your party won in the midterms and Scott Walker won a recall election then good for you. I'll feel fine knowing the Dems had a full sweep of all the battleground states, Obama was re-elected and he'll get 2 and maybe 3 more appointments to the Supreme Court. When you're bummed about his Supreme Court choices I"ll remind you that you can still feel good about the 2010 midterms

The point the 2010 midterms were a direct result of Obama's policies (ObamaCare in particular), not just the usual lower turnout. The good thing about winning the House is that the GOP can block much of Obama's buffoonery.

your guy won the largest part of the electorate that is shrinking the fastsest and he won an even smaller % of the minority vote than MCain did in 2012 and that segment of the population is only going to get larger. Unless you can find a way to produce some more elderly white voters your side has a problem

Hopefully the Repubs will continue to believe (as it seems you do if I'm interpretting you correctly) that they have no problem with the message and only a problem with the messenger. I'm sure if it's Rubio or Jindal tries to sell tax cuts for the rich, outlawing all abortion, privatizing everything, self deportation and whatever else Romney was pitching it will work out much better next time. You just need a young brown face to give the message

You aren't interpreting correctly at all. Romney got fewer voters overall. That includes all of those demographics: white voters, evangelicals, minorities, etc. Winning elections means bringing out your base and winning independents. Romney didn't do the former; so he lost, even though he did the latter.

Your incorrect interpretation also stretches to what you THINK the GOP's message is.

As far as tax cuts go, what part of extending the Bush tax cuts for EVERYBODY didn't you get? As usual, it seems folks like you are obsessed with taking other people's money. To borrow from Rubio, you don't need higher taxes; you need more taxpayers. If Obama were creating the jobs he said he would, revenue would not be an issue.

The GOP isn't appealing to minorities, by and large, because it's not promising indefinite government aid.

Nor is it promising to take money from other people to subsidize their existence or pay for our nation's debt (especially when doing such will have no effect).

The point the 2010 midterms were a direct result of Obama's policies (ObamaCare in particular), not just the usual lower turnout. The good thing about winning the House is that the GOP can block much of Obama's buffoonery.

I'm sure you believe that but how about showing some proof. All the stories after the 2010 midterms talked about the low turnout compared to 2008 which is common for midterm elections and recall elections as well. If Obama's policies were the factor then why weren't they a factor in 2010

You aren't interpreting correctly at all. Romney got fewer voters overall. That includes all of those demographics: white voters, evangelicals, minorities, etc. Winning elections means bringing out your base and winning independents. Romney didn't do the former; so he lost, even though he did the latter.

Your incorrect interpretation also stretches to what you THINK the GOP's message is.

As far as tax cuts go, what part of extending the Bush tax cuts for EVERYBODY didn't you get? As usual, it seems folks like you are obsessed with taking other people's money. To borrow from Rubio, you don't need higher taxes; you need more taxpayers. If Obama were creating the jobs he said he would, revenue would not be an issue.

The GOP isn't appealing to minorities, by and large, because it's not promising indefinite government aid.

Nor is it promising to take money from other people to subsidize their existence or pay for our nation's debt (especially when doing such will have no effect).

I'm sure you believe that the Repub agenda is something different than I characterized but maybe that's part of your parties problem because that was the obvious message to me and many others (like all those people who didn't vote for your guy). I'm well aware Romney promised tax cuts for everyone. I just believe that to be a lie and the middle class will wind up paying for just like always happens

btw - nice job parrotoing the latest meme that Romeny lost because Obama voters "want something" from goverment. Keep telling yourself that because if you believe it's true it means your party never win again unless you can find away to get rid of minorities or find a new message

New polling data from the Faith and Freedom Coalition, headed by pro-life advocate Ralph Reed, shows that the evangelical turnout was up in 2012 for Mitt Romney compared to the 2008 numbers for John McCain. The data makes it appear other reasons are behind the Romney loss to pro-abortion President Barack Obama last night than a failure of social conservative voters to support him.

A national post-election survey commissioned by the Faith and Freedom Coalition last night found that the evangelical vote increased in 2012 to a record 27% of the electorate and that white evangelicals voted roughly 78% for Mitt Romney to 21% for Barack Obama. This was the highest share of the vote in modern political history for evangelicals, Reed said.

One question I’m seeing in the comments is, “Did evangelicals turn out for Romney”? Yep, looks that way. Turnout among Protestants generally dropped slightly from 2008 (54% to 53%) but Romney’s share of the vote increased from 54% to 57%. Among white evangelicals specifically, turnout was steady at 26% of the electorate from four years ago and Romney took 78% of the vote compared to just 74% for McCain.